7 ms·

I wonder who the first president to ride a Chinese bullet train will be and say we need one of those in the US?

technofiend 7y ago
Or any bullet train for that matter... The French and Japanese have had a friendly rivalry for decades. But both like the Chinese are willing to dedicate right of way for high speed trains. The American system's shared lines for passenger and freight traffic creates limitations the other systems do not share.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Switzerland has shared lines, but the freight traffic is required to be able to go at the same speed as the passenger trains. They have shorter trains with more engines than you'd see in the US as a result.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    The passenger trains are really fast so its not really a compromise there
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Right, that's the point - a dual system can be made entirely workable. You just can't let the freight railroads set the rules like they have here in the US.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    I don't know if it's just where I happen to see them (near inhabited areas), but US freight trains seem to literally move at walking pace. Ringing the bell the entire time while they do it.
    - jdsully 7y ago
      They can get up to 50-60mph but only outside of built up areas with long straight track (e.g. in the Great Planes). They mostly go slow for fuel efficiency (it takes a lot of power and distance to build up speed). Here's one going 70mph in Texas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMhSRP7RBpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMhSRP7RBpo
  - askvictor 7y ago
    Switzerland is also tiny, making travel time less of a concern.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The UK system also has shared lines, but prioritize passengers and has a severe capacity problem.
wil421 7y ago
No way not going to happen. The only way this will happen is if 1) they find a way to make high speed work on the NA railway gauges and 2) you convince the cargo companies to make passenger a priority. 1) seems like an engineering problem and 2) seems like a pipe dream. Option 3) would be build dedicated high speed lines. Unless you’re a developing nation it sounds way too expensive. Especially a rail system as big as NA (US, Canada and Mexico are connected, maybe others in Central America).
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Never underestimate the ability of some President to waste tens of millions of dollars reaching the same conclusion after doing exactly what OP suggested.
  - mbarronj 7y ago
    That's hardly even the cost of the exploratory committee, let alone the initial train ride. . .
  - wil421 7y ago
    Maybe some Boring Billionaire can come up with a few new ideas and change our perspective.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    The California High Speed Rail project failed miserably, and cost the taxpayers $12.4 billion[1] to go from Bakersfield to Merced or about 160 miles (two cities nobody commutes from...but I digress). At it's cancellation point, it was estimated to cost over $98.1 billion for a Los Angeles to San Francisco route - but we should note the cost estimates were going up $10+ billion every year they were re-estimated. The entire thing was supposed to "only" cost around $30 billion when introduced. To make a High Speed Rail line that covers the entire United States... you're looking at hundreds of billions, up into the trillions of dollars... if not more. At these cost rates, it's well over $200 billion for a straight line between San Francisco and New York City... but of course it won't be a straight line and it'll need to go to more places than those two cities in order to attract any sort of reasonable ridershare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
briandear 7y ago
Is there a great unmet need to travel across the US on a 15+ hour train? We have airplanes and most people that need to travel across the country can afford a Southwest Airlines ticket to do so. The US also has 700 million people fewer than China, so there is less need for a China-style train system since air capacity handles the current needs just fine. Also, it’s highly doubtful than a long range train ticket would ever be cost effective. If people really want to cross the country on the cheap, buses exist. Trains also have the disadvantage of being inflexible. As populations shift, it’s much easier adjust air capacity to fit demand. While trains can only go where there are tracks. Airplanes are also safer than trains. https://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-planes-statistics-are-clear-about-which-mode-of-transportation-is-safest https://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-...
- MRD85 7y ago
  Aren't planes horrible for climate when compared to other systems?
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
Bullet trains have been around since the 60s in Japan, surely some USA president has ridden one on a trip there.
MRD85 7y ago
In terms of long distance travel can bullet trains compare with flights, especially if they shave time off with an easier check in system?
- pushtheenvelope 7y ago
  counter-intuitively, bullet trains offer a great alternative that airlines cannot: travelling from SF to NY in about 10-12 hours. 8 hours to sleep on a flat bed, and an hour or two for dinner and breakfast on either end. This would be far superior to the 5-hour red eye flights.
  - tastygreenapple 7y ago
    Most bullet trains run around ~250-300 km/h - it'd take ~15-17 hours to go from NYC to SF/LA on a bullet train. That's 8 hours of sleeping, two hours eating, and 5-7 hours wondering if the speed of an airplane outweighs the discomfort.
    - pushtheenvelope 7y ago
      fair point - not sure why you are being downvoted. Lets say SF to Chicago, then? Its about 2000 miles. I was trying to illustrate a more general point that speed isn't necessarily the best or most optimal criteria even for long distances. My choice of example could have been better.

Or any bullet train for that matter... The French and Japanese have had a friendly rivalry for decades. But both like the Chinese are willing to dedicate right of way for high speed trains. The American system's shared lines for passenger and freight traffic creates limitations the other systems do not share.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Switzerland has shared lines, but the freight traffic is required to be able to go at the same speed as the passenger trains. They have shorter trains with more engines than you'd see in the US as a result.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  The passenger trains are really fast so its not really a compromise there
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Right, that's the point - a dual system can be made entirely workable. You just can't let the freight railroads set the rules like they have here in the US.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  I don't know if it's just where I happen to see them (near inhabited areas), but US freight trains seem to literally move at walking pace. Ringing the bell the entire time while they do it.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    They can get up to 50-60mph but only outside of built up areas with long straight track (e.g. in the Great Planes). They mostly go slow for fuel efficiency (it takes a lot of power and distance to build up speed). Here's one going 70mph in Texas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMhSRP7RBpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMhSRP7RBpo
- askvictor 7y ago
  Switzerland is also tiny, making travel time less of a concern.
pjc50 7y ago
The UK system also has shared lines, but prioritize passengers and has a severe capacity problem.

wil421 7y ago

No way not going to happen. The only way this will happen is if 1) they find a way to make high speed work on the NA railway gauges and 2) you convince the cargo companies to make passenger a priority. 1) seems like an engineering problem and 2) seems like a pipe dream. Option 3) would be build dedicated high speed lines. Unless you’re a developing nation it sounds way too expensive. Especially a rail system as big as NA (US, Canada and Mexico are connected, maybe others in Central America).

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Never underestimate the ability of some President to waste tens of millions of dollars reaching the same conclusion after doing exactly what OP suggested.
- mbarronj 7y ago
  That's hardly even the cost of the exploratory committee, let alone the initial train ride. . .
- wil421 7y ago
  Maybe some Boring Billionaire can come up with a few new ideas and change our perspective.
- Alupis 7y ago
  The California High Speed Rail project failed miserably, and cost the taxpayers $12.4 billion[1] to go from Bakersfield to Merced or about 160 miles (two cities nobody commutes from...but I digress). At it's cancellation point, it was estimated to cost over $98.1 billion for a Los Angeles to San Francisco route - but we should note the cost estimates were going up $10+ billion every year they were re-estimated. The entire thing was supposed to "only" cost around $30 billion when introduced. To make a High Speed Rail line that covers the entire United States... you're looking at hundreds of billions, up into the trillions of dollars... if not more. At these cost rates, it's well over $200 billion for a straight line between San Francisco and New York City... but of course it won't be a straight line and it'll need to go to more places than those two cities in order to attract any sort of reasonable ridershare. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

briandear 7y ago

Is there a great unmet need to travel across the US on a 15+ hour train? We have airplanes and most people that need to travel across the country can afford a Southwest Airlines ticket to do so. The US also has 700 million people fewer than China, so there is less need for a China-style train system since air capacity handles the current needs just fine. Also, it’s highly doubtful than a long range train ticket would ever be cost effective. If people really want to cross the country on the cheap, buses exist. Trains also have the disadvantage of being inflexible. As populations shift, it’s much easier adjust air capacity to fit demand. While trains can only go where there are tracks. Airplanes are also safer than trains. https://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-planes-statistics-are-clear-about-which-mode-of-transportation-is-safest https://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-...

MRD85 7y ago
Aren't planes horrible for climate when compared to other systems?

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

Bullet trains have been around since the 60s in Japan, surely some USA president has ridden one on a trip there.

MRD85 7y ago

In terms of long distance travel can bullet trains compare with flights, especially if they shave time off with an easier check in system?

pushtheenvelope 7y ago
counter-intuitively, bullet trains offer a great alternative that airlines cannot: travelling from SF to NY in about 10-12 hours. 8 hours to sleep on a flat bed, and an hour or two for dinner and breakfast on either end. This would be far superior to the 5-hour red eye flights.
- tastygreenapple 7y ago
  Most bullet trains run around ~250-300 km/h - it'd take ~15-17 hours to go from NYC to SF/LA on a bullet train. That's 8 hours of sleeping, two hours eating, and 5-7 hours wondering if the speed of an airplane outweighs the discomfort.
  - pushtheenvelope 7y ago
    fair point - not sure why you are being downvoted. Lets say SF to Chicago, then? Its about 2000 miles. I was trying to illustrate a more general point that speed isn't necessarily the best or most optimal criteria even for long distances. My choice of example could have been better.